On 28.02.23 11:10, Kartyshov Ivan wrote:
3) Procedure style: Tom Lane and Kyotaro (wait_proc_v1.patch)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27171.1586439221%40sss.pgh.pa.us
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210121.173009.235021120161403875.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
==========
advantages: no new words in grammar,like it made in
pg_last_wal_replay_lsn, no snapshots need
disadvantages: a little harder to remember names
SELECT pg_waitlsn(‘LSN’, timeout);
SELECT pg_waitlsn_infinite(‘LSN’);
SELECT pg_waitlsn_no_wait(‘LSN’);
Of the presented options, I prefer this one. (Maybe with a "_" between
"wait" and "lsn".)
But I wonder how a client is going to get the LSN. How would all of
this be used by a client? I can think of a scenarios where you have an
application that issues a bunch of SQL commands and you have some kind
of pooler in the middle that redirects those commands to different
hosts, and what you really want is to have it transparently behave as if
it's just a single host. Do we want to inject a bunch of "SELECT
pg_get_lsn()", "SELECT pg_wait_lsn()" calls into that?
I'm tempted to think this could be a protocol-layer facility. Every
query automatically returns the current LSN, and every query can also
send along an LSN to wait for, and the client library would just keep
track of the LSN for (what it thinks of as) the connection. So you get
some automatic serialization without having to modify your client code.
That said, exposing this functionality using functions could be a valid
step in that direction, so that you can at least build out the actual
internals of the functionality and test it out.
